4.2 Article

Meningococcal C vaccine coverage in France in infants, children, and adolescents

期刊

MEDECINE ET MALADIES INFECTIEUSES
卷 49, 期 3, 页码 180-186

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.medmal.2019.01.014

关键词

Adolescents; Infants; Meningococcus C; Vaccination; Vaccination coverage

资金

  1. GlaxoSmithKline France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. -Meningococcal C (MenC) vaccination was introduced in the French vaccination calendar in 2010 to reduce the incidence of invasive meningococcal C disease (IMD C), mainly through herd immunity. The Vaccinoscopie survey helps follow vaccination coverage rates (VCRs) of children. Methods. -This annual survey is based on a self-administered online questionnaire. In 2017, 4500 mothers of children completed the questionnaire and reported all vaccinations recorded in their child's health record. Results. -MenC vaccination was deemed indispensable or useful by 77% to 84% of mothers. The main barrier mentioned by mothers considering the vaccination useless/not very useful, was fear of adverse effects. VCR was estimated at 77% among 24-35-month-old infants, 79% among 6-year-old children, and 50% among 14-15-year-old adolescents. VCR strongly varied depending on the physician's advice for vaccination and on the type of follow-up. Six months after publication of the new French vaccine calendar in April 2017, with a MenC vaccine recommendation for all 5-month-old infants, 43% of infants had received a dose at 6 months of age. Conclusions. -VCRs are insufficient to reach herd immunity. Between 2011 and 2017 more than 100 deaths could have been avoided in France if optimal VCRs had been achieved. Faced with this vaccine strategy failure, the new vaccine recommendation at 5 months of age seems well-accepted. This recommendation and the implementation of infant mandatory vaccination in 2018 should have a major impact on IMD C incidence in this age group. (C) 2019 GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA. Publie par Elsevier Masson SAS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据